2006’s “The Da Vinci Code” hit a nerve with numerous demographics. Christians, Historians, Dan Brown fans and Tom Hanks Hairstyle Enthusiasts (citation needed) all seemed equally appalled by the film’s casual treatment of history, accusations of conspiracy within the Church, and the glorification of numerous ancient societies which are either too insignificant to note or didn’t even exist. Good little film, though.
Ron Howard and Tom Hanks return for 2009’s follow-up, “Angels and Demons”, which in a nut shell delivers more of the same. A fast paced, intriguing, and entirely made-up storyline accompanied by edgy Bond-like violence and Tom Hanks, somehow landing profoundly on the line between looking like a lost puppy and a street-wise super-spy. Well - if you can take your eyes off of that ridiculous hair.
One thing to note about “Angels and Demons” seems to be that no one can decide whether it’s a sequel or a prequel. This all seems to depend on who you ask. Tom Hanks said in an interview prior to the release of the film that it was a prequel; and perhaps he’s right – the book was a prequel. Interestingly, however, one reference is made later on in the film to Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon having a past discretion with the Catholic Church – presumably referring to the events of the first film. And even more interestingly, this seems to be the only reason Langdon is involved in the storyline at all. This background seems to be discussed literally as little as possible during the film, so there’s a good chance the writing staff weren’t sure either.
But anyway, the story is, some anti-matter has been stolen from the LHC at CERN in Switzerland. “What else is new?” You might find yourself saying. But due to some inconvenient “physics” which was likely researched on Wikipedia on a slow day, tiny amounts of anti-matter cause cataclysmic explosions once the encasement device has ran out of battery. The next thing we know, this incredibly unlikely super-bomb has been planted somewhere in the Vatican, and it’s up to Tom Hanks and plucky Cardinal Ewan McGregor to find it before it inexplicably explodes.
The impact of this film is highly reminiscent of its predecessor. Tom Hanks carries the film by playing his character with the profound combination of mild confusion and inspiring genius - being completely out of the loop one moment and explaining the plotline to the smallest detail the next. Combined with fast paced editing and an insightful, visually excellent style of direction on the part of Ron Howard – helped in part by the aestheic beauty of Rome by night, this makes the film a mostly believable visual treat, and it could be argued it bests The Da Vinci Code simply with a superior pace. In fact, as a stand-alone film, despite its historical and scientific inaccuracies, it makes for a fine thriller.
However, as hard as it tries (especially in the case of the missing back-story), Angels and Demons fails to escape any comparison that would be made with The Da Vinci Code. This is particularly because of the obvious comparisons that can be made with the archetypal characters laid out by the first film. Firstly, Robert Langdon returns, but with a significant amount less character development than last time. As a character in The Da Vinci Code, it was ultimately his personal goal to overcome his irrational fears developed in his youth and clear his name. However, in this sequel, no such goals are outlined for Langdon, and he strangely appears hugely committed to risking his life for no apparent reason. The viewer can only assume that, much like Hanks, Langdon is in his “just tell me when the cheque clears” stage of his career.
The female side-kick also makes a return – although not with the same interesting character as Audrey Tatou’s Sophie Neuveu. Ayelet Zurer’s physicist Vittoria Vettra inexplicably sees fit to follow Langdon around – presumably so that he has someone to explain the plot to. A most disappointing character. Stellan Skarsgard also takes a turn where Jean Reno left off, with the grizzled, tough guy, by-the-book cop. Skarsgard does a decent job as always, but his character serves as little more than a plot obstacle.
However, the real star of the show is Ewan McGregor, who plays Carmelengo Patrick McKenna – an Irish priest, adopted by the Pope after being orphaned as a young boy. While it’s unfortunate that McGregor occasionally stumbles over his accent, his performance is still solid, particularly in the delivery of one monologue late into the film which delivers an unexpected, yet powerful message. Summarily, he implies that Religion may not, after all be the vindictive, oppressive shackle on humanity that the Internet and all those pesky scientists would have us believe, but actually more of a strict, but ultimately well-meaning parent. Suddenly, you’ve stopped trying to keep up with whatever cryptic who-summa-fudge Tom Hanks is trying to decipher in the nick of time, and against all odds, this silly film that the critics have been bashing has actually got you thinking. And it’s all thanks to Ewan McGregor. Not bad for a man who once dived into a toilet to rescue a rectal suppository.
Ultimately, Angels and Demons is a fun thriller. Not to be taken too seriously – at least, not as seriously as the film itself would like you to take it. But, from start to finish, it is mostly well written, mostly well acted and mostly factually inaccurate. Despite this however, it is a fast paced, thought provoking thrill-ride, which culminates in a spectacular special effects display and an unexpected twist in a climax which is far and away the single best aspect of the entire series thus far.
Due to its impressive showing at the box office, The Dan Brown series could easily see a third instalment in years to come, which will likely add unnecessary baggage to two films which probably would’ve been better off on their own in the first place. Whether or not Ron Howard and Tom Hanks will return for a third film remains to be speculated, but since Creativity and Hollywood got divorced in 2007 (the writer’s strike), you can probably bet your mortgage on either a sequel within ten years, or a remake within twenty to thirty. This “re-imagining” will probably star someone who was still wetting the bed when Tom Hanks was in his prime. Until then however, we can all enjoy this film of which, for all of its flaws, Ron Howard and co. can still be proud.
8/10
No comments:
Post a Comment